Debates of Dec. 4th, 2014

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, any good Habs fan will tell you that is not true. Certainly we have done very well when it comes to dealing with the United States on a number of different levels.

I have a good working relationship with Secretary Tom Vilsack. I know the Minister of International Trade has a good working relationship with Ambassador Froman.

Having said that, what the member for Wascana is alluding to when it comes to the single-desk is absolutely wrong. He needs better research. He actually needs to get out of Regina at some point and talk to farmers, and if he would like, I could introduce him to some from Saskatchewan later today. They are here attending GrowCanada. They are thrilled with the changes that were made, and I am sure they would be happy to speak to the member for Wascana.

Child Care

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

In order to form government, Conservatives promised Canadian families that they would help create 125,000 child care spaces. In the years since, they have created none, and now the Conservatives are attacking their own workplace daycare policy, unilaterally cancelling a critical subsidy that allowed a non-profit daycare to operate in a federally owned building.

Why have the Conservatives abandoned families that need access to affordable child care?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, we have done the opposite through our significant, in fact enormous, increases in the Canada social transfer to provinces. They have been able to use part of those funds to create over 175,000 additional day care spaces, compared to 2006.

Last month the Prime Minister announced that this government will be increasing the child care tax deduction that will provide further assistance to families using institutional child care, in addition to which, of course, the child tax benefit package will deliver, on average, $1,200 in incremental benefits to families with children in a way that respects the choices they make.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives are not going to build the 125 spaces they promised, they could at least stop shutting them down.

Last week, Ottawa lost Tupper Tots, a non-profit daycare, because the government killed the federal workplace daycare policy.

Right now, dozens of parents in Ottawa are desperately scrambling to find care for their children. There are nine other similar sites and centres across Canada, four of them in Ottawa.

The question is: Will the government work with those of us who want to preserve these child care spaces and make sure there is child care for these families and others?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the precise subsidy to which the member is referring. I can tell him, however, that the government is increasing the child care tax deduction, which will assist parents who pay for institutional child care.

Of course, we have announced billions of dollars in additional support for families with kids, including through the child tax benefit. All together, these benefits will amount to about $1,200 in incremental support for the average family with pre-school children. That is considerable support that respects the choices of families.

Science and Technology

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is ranked number one in the G7 for our support for scientific research and development in our colleges and universities. Science powers commerce, creates jobs, and improves the quality of life for all Canadians.

Can the Minister of Industry please update the House on the exciting announcement the Prime Minister made in Markham earlier today?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, today in Markham, the Prime Minister announced the Canada first research excellence fund. This follows through on our commitment in the budget to support Canada's universities.

I think, as are all Canadians, we are incredibly proud of the universities we have and the great work they do, such as the world-class engineering schools at the University of Waterloo and University of Toronto, the brain research centre out of the University of British Columbia, the pediatric AIDS research that is being done at McGill University.

We want to take this research that is being done across the country and boost it, so that Canada will continue to lead the world in academic research and be proud of these great institutions.

The Prime Minister made this announcement, $1.5 billion over the next seven years, and we are going to continue to lead the world.

Ethics

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the Prime Minister appointed Mark McQueen as the head of the Toronto Port Authority. The federal guidelines that govern the political activities of Governor in Council appointees clearly state that public office holders should not participate in political activity. Under the guidelines, contributing money to political parties at any level of government is explicitly forbidden. In 2008, Mr. McQueen donated more than $1,000 to the Conservative Party. This is a violation of the rules.

Will the Prime Minister immediately dismiss this port authority member, and will the party give back the dirty money?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the guidelines state that public office holders must consult the guidelines to ensure that political activity does not impair their ability to discharge their public duties. In this particular case, Mr. McQueen's Twitter feed is personal in nature, and the exchange in question with the member opposite stems from a longstanding pre-existing relationship

Canada Post

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by allowing Canada Post to eliminate home delivery, the Conservatives have been willing accomplices. While the city of Laval has been talking about adapting its services to the needs of an aging population, Canada Post and the Conservatives are making things harder on seniors.

Next year, the people of Chomedey, Îles-Laval, Laval-Ouest, Laval-sur-le-Lac, Sainte-Dorothée and Fabreville will lose their home delivery services. Why is the government cutting our public services?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the government is doing no such thing. Canada Post is obviously an arm's-length crown corporation that makes its own decisions. It is confronting a problem where 1.2 billion fewer letters are being delivered in 2013 than in 2006. In order meet that, Canada Post came up with its five-point plan. The member should be well aware of those particular steps.

By the way, it was not so long ago that the FCM examined this particular issue by way of a motion and defeated it by nearly two to one.

Regional Economic Development

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. Through our government's investments, we are ensuring that northern Ontario is well positioned to reap the benefits of economic development. However, many small communities in northern Ontario have limited capacity to undertake economic stimulus projects.

Could the President of the Treasury Board share with this House what our government is doing to create jobs in northern Ontario communities of all sizes?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie for the great job he is doing representing his constituents and representing the values and interests of northern Ontario. I share with him in that capacity, as well.

In fact, the hon. member for Kenora, the minister responsible for FedNor, is in Sudbury as we speak, making another announcement for community investment, for jobs and opportunity in northern Ontario. That is what we do. We are there for communities.

While the other side is trying to find new ways to create a new long gun registry to go after law-abiding duck hunters and farmers, we are looking after the real interests of northern Ontarians, and we will continue to do so.

The Environment

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Charlevoix Biosphere Reserve has been recognized by UNESCO since 1988. This is a unique conservation site that helps the region grow and helps put it on the map.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives cut funding for this reserve in 2012. Now, it could lose its international status and recognition. The people of Charlevoix are working together to maintain this recognition. Will the minister help the reserve or will he ignore Charlevoix and biodiversity in Canada?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to protecting our environment. Since we formed government, we have created two national marine conservation areas, three marine protected wildlife areas, three national wildlife areas, two national parks, and a national historic site.

We are committed to our national sites, and it is a shame that the NDP does not support this action.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be heading to the COP 20 climate negotiations taking place in Lima, and I know that the eyes of the world are on those negotiations to come up with—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has the floor, and I would like to be able to hear the question.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I was having difficulty being able to put forward what I believe is the common will of everyone in this place. It is, apparently, the avowed desire of the Prime Minister to see a comprehensive, legally binding treaty—or at least comprehensive involving all nations around the world—for climate action.

My question for the Prime Minister is this. Would we agree, when numbers get bigger over time, that something is rising? We keep hearing that greenhouse gases are falling in this country, but they do not meet that definition.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about international agreements, we have stated consistently that, in any agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all major economies and emitters must do their part.

Recently, we saw the U.S. and China, who account for 39% of global greenhouse gas emissions, get together and have some discussions. Canada only emits 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2012, for example, to answer the member's question, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions were roughly 5% lower than 2005 levels, while the economy grew over 10% during the same period. It will continue to do this without a job-killing carbon tax.

Business of the House

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again this week, the NDP, as official opposition, has proposed practical changes and policies to the Canadian people.

Last evening, we had a vote on proportional representation, to bring in a fair and just voting system. Unfortunately, the leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of the Liberal Party voted against our motion, even though the public is becoming increasingly interested in this issue.

The other offer this week was the historic motion offered by my colleague from Vancouver East, which the NDP brought forward to finally put into place adequate compensation for victims of thalidomide, which passed overwhelmingly from the House, and on which we will hopefully be seeing action within the next few days.

There are only 16 sitting weeks in the life of the government, 16 sitting weeks before Canadians can put an end to the current government.

My question to the government House leader is quite simple. What will the government put on the agenda next week for the Canadian public?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act.

Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2. This bill would put into place important support for families, as well as key job-creating measures, which would build on our government's record of over 1.2 million net new jobs created since the economic downturn.

On Monday, before question period, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-12, the Drug-Free Prisons Act. By tackling drug use and trafficking in federal penitentiaries, we will make the correctional system safer for staff and inmates, while also increasing the success of rehabilitation.

After question period, we will consider Bill C-44, the Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, at report stage. I understand that, regrettably, the NDP will be opposing this bill.

Tuesday will see the House debate Bill C-43 before it gets its third and final reading.

Wednesday we will consider Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, at report stage and I hope at third reading. This bill was reported back from the very hard working justice committee yesterday. It was adopted unanimously after a thorough and exhaustive study all autumn. The victims bill of rights act would create statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime for the very first time in Canadian history. This legislation would establish statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights.

The chair of the justice committee implored House leaders yesterday to pass the bill expeditiously. I hope my colleagues will agree.

Next Thursday we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-32, Bill C-12, Bill C-44, and Bill S-6, as well as taking up Bill S-5 at third reading to establish the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act.

Next Friday, the House will complete the third reading debate on Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, to create Canada's first national urban park.

After that we will have an opportunity to wish everybody a Merry Christmas.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in the House. Today we are speaking to Senate bill S-6, An act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

It is interesting that the bill is coming before us the week that the Yukon Supreme Court just struck down the efforts by the Yukon government, another right wing government, to ignore consultation, ignore environmental due process, ignore first nations in its push and attack on the Peel valley watershed. The supreme court said that it cannot do that. There is a social licence issue here when we are looking at development issues, and the court has thrown it back.

This is a pattern, and we are going to talk about it in the bill. The government thinks it can get ahead of social licence by just bringing in omnibus legislation, by stripping regulations, by doing things in the back room in order to kick-start mega development projects on which it has failed to do its basic due diligence and consultation, especially with first nations, who have enshrined constitutional rights under section 35. In doing so the government ends up creating a situation like the one we have now.

The government's militant advocacy of the big oil agenda has created a backlash across the country. It is a backlash where people say “You stripped the waters act of 99.999% of the lakes and rivers in our country so that the pipelines could get through without having to worry that there are basic protections in place.” Then it goes into the communities and they are saying “Are you kidding me? You're going to run bitumen through my town when there are no shut off valves on either side of the lakes and rivers?”

I represent probably one of the largest mining regions in Canada, if not in the world. When I talk to the mining companies in my region they get it. They understand the importance of having what we call “treaties on the ground”. We need to have the support of the local communities. Some of the ways to do that is by meeting environmental standards and through first nations consultation. Talk to anyone in the Ontario mining industry today about the possibility of getting a project off the ground, and they will say that without that consultation, it is not going to happen

We see a bill come forward like Bill S-6 that is unilaterally rewriting Yukon's environmental and socio-economic evaluation system. It is ignoring the issues of first nations consultations. It ignores the incredible economic value of the landscape and natural resource beauty in Yukon. This is another attempt to bypass the people of the country and create consensus on what development should look like. I believe it is only going to end up in another failure and impasse, going all the way back to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline days of these mega projects. If they are not done in a balanced manner, they are not going to get done at all.

Having travelled across the country from one end to the other, having done some of it in the back of a cheap little mini van with a band and other times as a sitting politician, I have never seen a section of the country that has taken my heart as much as Yukon. I love St. John's, Newfoundland, and my family roots—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

More on Timmins. Shame.